The Environmental Movement Goes Corporate - Radicalize An Issue And Make Big Money

A few years ago I was skimming through an issue of the Sierra Club’s magazine and came across an insert regarding the Lewis and Clark expedition.

The insert dealt, among other things, with the wildlife seen by Lewis and Clark as they traversed relatively unknown trans-Mississippi Western portions of what would become the United States.

Bison depicted by an artist on the Pacific Railway Expedition in 1853

Particularly striking were a number of calculations done as part of the piece regarding animals living on the Great Plains, between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains.

Prairie Dogs, the piece proclaimed, may have numbered 5 billion while buffalo may have numbered 60 million.  For context, according to inventories taken at the University of Missouri there are about 91 million cows in the entire United States in 2012.

On a trip taken about the same time the Lewis and Clark piece came out I stopped off at the National Grasslands Visitors Center in Wall, South Dakota.  I picked up some material regarding Prairie Dogs and, later, called and interviewed some experts on the critters regarding their lives, habits and so on.

Long story short, it appears the Sierra Club numbers regarding the animals are likely to be vastly overstated.  Taking the average space occupied by the critters, subtracting unsuitable habitat and so on, and doing the math leads to a conclusion the range occupied by the animals would have had to be larger by hundreds of thousands of square miles than it actually is to have allowed for the numbers of animals said to have existed to have actually existed.

The same kind of exaggeration takes place whenever an issue dear to the hearts of the pop-environmental movement is discussed. 

As discussed in an earlier blog, the forests found by early explorers are very different from the forests extent in much of the Western United States today yet some will go to the wall to prevent remedial harvests designed to bring the forests back to more original conditions.

To listen to the environmental movement one would think fish, particularly salmon, were so thick in the oceans, rivers and streams of pre-history that one had only to roll out of bed in the morning, stumble down to the river, reach down and snag breakfast.  In truth, tribal history is full of tales about starvation and the generally constant difficulty early Americans had finding an adequate food supply.

So, why does all that matter?

It gets back to one of the themes running through this series of blogs; much of the pop-environmental movement is dedicated to recreating a past that never existed and in insisting that past be constructed, as often as not ends up creating a future more blighted than it has to be.

The actual condidition of the origianl forest is well documented.  The photos were taken and included in a several volume report by the U.S. Geological Survey of the nations forest reserves in the late 1890s.  Modern day pictures taken from the same spot would show hundreds of smaller trees surrounding the older trees and forming a fire ladder into the crowns of the older trees.  In many areas, removal of the understory can restore the forest to its original condition.

The big question of the day is, “Why?”

There are two or three possible answers.  One of them has been regularly pointed to by Dr. Patrick Moore over the past two or three decades of his career. 

Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace, the well known pop-environmental organization.  I first heard him speak at a logging conference about 20 years ago. 

Paraphrased, Moore told conference attendees that his movement had begun with the best of intentions and had grown in power and financial clout because he and his fellows were fighting the good fight.  But then, he said, industry began to listen to the group’s complaints and began to act in important ways to resolve the problems Greenpeace was pointing to.  That, Moore said, was eventually seen as a disaster because, when the problem goes away, the enthusiasm for providing funds go away so, Moore said, the group had to get more and more extreme to keep the funding coming.  Eventually, funding became more important than the cause and no extreme was seen as too extreme.

Today, environmental groups raise and spend massive sums of money, sums exceeding those spent on elections and other expensive endeavors.  Groups like the Sierra Club, and many others, are major corporations with incredible access to cash.

Moore, as quoted on the web site Climate Depot last year addressed just one aspect of the pop-environmental movements recent focus areas; climate change.  Asked what is driving the discussion of climate change in today’s world Moore said, "A powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue"

In short, the environmental movement has gone corporate.  It no longer matters what truth might be; what matters is the development of a spin on this issue or that capable of keeping the funding coming in.

So the true answer to the question, “How many prairie dogs, or buffalo, were there when Lewis and Clark passed through,” is, “How many do you need there to have been?”

The Triumph Of Emotion Over Science: Rachael Carson And Dixie Lee Ray

Hysteria vs Science
Despite well known evidence to the contrary, Carson's claim that bird populations were in danger of extinction due to the use of DDT led to bans on the use of the pesticide and, demonstrably, the death of millions as the result of insect caused disease  led Dixie Lee Ray to label Silent Spring, "an emotional, lyrical, and grossly unscientific book that became the Bible of the environmental movement." 

Nearly 20 years ago I had the honor of visiting Dixie Lee Ray at her Fox Island, Washington home for the purpose of interviewing her for a magazine article.  I believe I was the last to interview her before she passed on in 1994.

Dixie Lee was one of the great minds of the 20^th Century but she had a couple of great failings.  She insisted on accuracy in science and, she spoke her mind no matter the cost.  Both are deadly sins in the world of the pop-environmentalist.

The quality of Dixie Lee’s mind is unquestioned.  Her accomplishments demonstrate the capacity of the woman.  Dr. Dixie Lee Ray was a marine biologist by training, a professor at the University of Washington.  She earned her way into becoming director of Seattle's Pacific Science Center. In 1972 she was appointed to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by President Richard Nixon.  She eventually chaired the commission then was appointed to serve her nation as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; in charge of pursuing the nation’s interests regarding most scientific endeavors.  In 1976 Dixie Lee became Washington’s first female governor. 

As governor Dixie Lee quickly ran afoul of the pop-environmental movement for her outspokenness regarding a whole range of environmental issues.  Her party dumped her when it came time to run for a second term for a variety of crimes and misdemeanors including honesty, scientific accuracy and a forthright outspokenness. 

Dixie wrote two books after leaving office.  Trashing The Planet and Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened To Common Sense? ought to be textbooks in any library oriented to environmental issues.

Perhaps more than any environmentalist in recent history, the life of Dixie Lee Ray points to the excesses of the pop-environmental movement and, unfortunately, the probability that a true environmental ethic will rise anytime soon.

Dixie saw the triumphant rise of emotion based science as it overwhelmed the environmental movement.  In her conversation with me she pointed to a couple of sentences in Trashing The Planet as exemplifying what the movement had become; “It is complex in that it incorporates a strongly negative element of anti-development, anti-progress, anti-technology, anti-business, anti-established institutions, and, above all, anti-capitalism.  Its positive side, if that is what it can be called, is that it seeks development of a society totally devoid of industry and technology.”

In her introduction to Trashing, Dixie laid out her personal philosophy regarding science; “One of the most profound obligations of scientists is to provide factual information about basic science, technology, the environment, and human health in a manner that can be understood by policy makers and the public at large.”

Standing in sharp contrast to Dixie Lee Ray is Rachel Carson, the author of one of the most influential “environmental” books of all time; Silent Spring.

Silent Spring was published 50 years ago and has become one of the most cited works, in terms of the environmental movement, of all time.

As described by Dixie Lee, Carson’s work is, “…an emotional, lyrical, and grossly unscientific book that became the Bible of the environmental movement.”

Silent Spring was responsible for the banning of a pesticide, DDT, that had almost eradicated malaria in the world.  As Dixie pointed out, “DDT, the most effective insecticide ever produced, could have saved millions of lives from malaria and other insect-borne diseases had not political pressure brought by environmentalists like Rachael Carson banned its use in the U.S. and reduced its use worldwide.”

Ray details the beneficial effects DDT had on human health pointing out the chemical was used to control body lice on soldiers in World War II with the effect that for the first time in history no Allied soldiers were stricken by typhus, a disease that had killed more soldiers than bullets had in the First War. 

In Sri Lanka, she pointed out, 2.8 million cases of malaria were counted in the years before DDT.  By 1963 only 17 cases were known to exist.  By 1969, after the banning of DDT the number had once again risen to 2.5 million cases.

Two months after hearings in 1971 resulted in findings that the science did not support the banning of DDT, the U.S. Department of Ecology banned the chemical.  The head of the agency at the time, William Ruckelshaus later admitted, Dixie pointed out, that, “decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political…the ultimate judgment remains political.”

In insisting that decision making regarding environmental issues be based on sound science and rational thought Dixie Lee Ray was swimming against the current in the 1990s.  Rachael Carson had demonstrated to the pop-environmental industry that emotion can trump science.

Some believe Rachel Carson was simply careless in her work regarding pesticides.  Others point to the possibility that self-aggrandizement and increased sales may have played a part in her approach to science.  What is assuredly true is that her work has been pretty much discredited to no effect. 

In the world of the pop-environmental industry in 2012, emotion has triumphed over fact in terms of science.  That's good for fund raising but bad for the environment.

Forest Fires And Greenhouse Gas Emissions - We Fail The Forest When We Oppose All Harvest

One of the ways the pop-environmental movement is most successful at assuring plenty of greenhouse gasses are emitted to the atmosphere is to hinder attempts to treat forests for forest health.  The successes go beyond increased greenhouse gas emissions.  In the United States and Canada, at least, decades of neglect in terms of treating for fire reduction have created a situation where forest wild fires burn so hot they vaporize streams, and everything living in them and, actually smelt things like mercury from the ground, sending it into the airstreams to settle in lakes, streams, bogs and lungs.

Modern forest fires tend to be more intense than most were in historic times

Forest fires are, of course, nothing new in North America.  American Indians routinely burned forests, plains and anything else that could be burned to increase berry yields, attract tasty critters like deer, and other game animals, burn out enemies, create clearings and for a variety of other reasons.  When Isaac Stevens arrived in Washington Territory in 1853 fresh off a triple threat trip on which he surveyed routes for a potential transcontinental railroad, signed treaties with Indian tribes and, on arrival took office as first Governor of the territory one of his first observations was to the effect that the whole region seemed to be on fire.

But wildfires, into the early years of the 20^th Century, were generally different from wildfires today because the forest was different.  Today’s forests, especially in the American and Canadian intermountain west, are far more densely populated with trees, than they were when the pioneers first arrived on the scene.  Even more important, the fuel loads at forest floor level and up are immensely greater than they were 100 years ago so fires are much more prone to climb the fuel ladder from forest floor to the crowns of the trees and erupt into conflagrations that leap from tree to trees and are very difficult to suppress.

Isaac Stevens meets with the "Nez Perces" in 1852 or '53.  Note the state of the forest in terms of fuel loads.  The Stevens expedition included an artist charged with accurately rendering a visual record of the trip.

The modern forest is overloaded with fuel stock and too many trees making the forest a prime candidate for catestrophic fire

We know 100 + years of fire suppression is the big reason we have larger and more destructive wildfires.  That is not a reason to ignore the forest in the hopes things will go back to normal if we just bury our heads in the sand, or ashes, long enough.  We have the technology to restore the forests to more historic conditions but, thanks to the pop-environmental movement, we all too often lack the will to accomplish the task; the movement would rather see a fire unnecessarily burn an old growth tree than see a well managed thinning regimen reduce the intensity of a fire to the level where larger trees can withstand the fire event. 

The problem with large wildfires is they not only put the forest at risk, they emit massive amounts of pollutants into the air.  A single wildfire can emit many times the greenhouse gasses, particulates and other pollutants many entire industry sectors emit in entire years.

Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen is one of the world’s leading experts on forests and forest health.  In recent years he has developed a model for assessing the consequences of forest fires called, simply enough, the Forest Carbon and Emissions Model.

In 2009 Bonnicksen published the third in a series of examinations of emissions resulting from forest fires in California titled Impacts of California Wildfires On Climate And Forests:  A Study of Seven Years of Wildfires (2001 – 2007).

On summarizing the findings of his work Bonnicksen said, “The wildfire crisis is becoming more serious each year. Fires are getting bigger, more destructive, and more expensive. In 2001, California wildfires burned one-half million acres. In 2007, 1.1 million acres burned, and an estimated 1.4 million acres burned in 2008 destroying 1,000 homes. This was the most destructive fire season in the state’s history and 2009 could be worse.”

Discussing the emissions resulting from the fires Bonnicksen commented, “From 2001 to 2007, fires burned more than 4 million acres and released an estimated 277 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from combustion and the post-fire decay of dead trees. That is an average of 68 tons per acre. These wildfires also kill wildlife, pollute the air and water, and strip soil from hillsides. The greenhouse gases they emit are wiping out much of what is being achieved to reduce emissions from fossil fuels to battle global warming.”

Putting the impacts of fires in context, Bonnicksen pointed out, “The emissions from only the seven years of wildfires documented in this study are equivalent to adding an estimated 50 million more cars onto California’s highways for one year, each spewing tons of greenhouse gases. Stated another way, this means all 14 million cars in California would have to be locked in a garage for three and one-half years to make up for the global warming impact of these wildfires.”

Much of the damage done by unnecessarily intense forest fires in California and, across the rest of the United States and Canada can be reduced by a rational and well managed treatment program aimed at enhancing the health of the North American forests.

Well meaning, but misguided, demands that forests be left to their own devices only result in more destruction of the forest resource, huge amounts of unnecessary pollution and the waste of vast amounts of time and money better spent on ends with more likelihood of success. 

The Environmental Consequences of Planning To Fail

The City of Bellingham as it has to look in just ten more years based on current planning documents.  The Yellow building just visible in the upper right is currently Bellingham's tallest building; a building constructed about 3/4 of a century ago.

                                               ..................

“Whatever failures I have known, whatever errors I have committed, whatever follies I have witnessed in private and public life have been the consequence of action without thought”.

Bernard Baruch, Wall Street mogul and economic advisor to presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman 

“We must stop talking about the American dream and start listening to the dreams of Americans.”

- Reubin Askew, former Governor of Florida

Almost nothing we do as a society has more impact on the earth’s environment than our efforts to accomplish land use planning. 

Almost nothing we do as a society is more susceptible to the unintended consequences of introducing politics and the emotion based approaches typical of the pop-environmental movement than our efforts to accomplish land use planning. 

Nearly 100 years ago, in the wake of the First World War, three young musicians penned a tune including the words, “How you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm, after they’ve seen Paree?”

The song reflected the fact that, in a modern economy, most people prefer life in the city to life in the country. 

In terms of avoiding environmental degradation and of creating opportunities for environmental enhancements, that preference for city life is a positive thing.  A well planned cityscape with opportunities for citizens to “live the American (or European, or Asian or, whatever) dream” is filled with opportunity to protect and improve the overall environment.

 The problem with most land use planning approaches stems from the fact the approaches are designed and implemented by governments; they are highly susceptible to being interest group driven both during the planning effort and, after.

While Bellingham planned for unprecedented growth in its downtown core the City did not follow its own planning initiatives in the buildings it constructed.  "We couldn't afford to do it," one decision maker told me, demonstrating the perils of unrealistic planning in terms of achieving environmental goals.

An old proverb with some version in most societies has to do with how a donkey can be induced to pull a wagon.  The two choices are the carrot, or the stick.  A carrot hung on a string in front of the donkey will induce the animal to strain forward in an attempt to eat the carrot and, in the process, the cart is pulled forward. 

Alternatively, whipping the donkey with the stick will irritate the animal enough to induce it to attempt to avoid the irritation by moving forward and pulling the cart.

In planning, an equivalent process plays out in most jurisdictions.

At its bottom, at least in most North American areas, the goal of land use planning is to induce as many people as possible to live in and near cities.  More people living in cities means fewer people choosing the rural experience.  The choice to live in a city environment rather than rural is generally seen as a good thing in environmental terms.

A second consideration is that, especially regarding the pop-environmental movement, a strong undercurrent in the discussion is a desire to restrict all growth in a jurisdiction; “If you must go somewhere, go somewhere else!”

Enter the carrot or the stick question. 

As the issue plays out in Whatcom County, the place where I live, and especially in Bellingham, the county seat, the pop-environmental movement not only wants most growth, if it must occur, to take place in the city, the movement wants that growth to be confined to the urban core.

As a consequence, County and City planning approaches rely heavily on the stick; “You will all live in high rise buildings in and near the downtown core or you will not live here at all.” 

The problem the planning approach does not address is that few Americans lie awake at night dreaming about raising their children on the eighteenth floor of a high rise.  In fact, most Americans, of all ages, reject the option. 

What actually occurs on most sites in the downtown core

Faced with a planning approach designed to make city life as miserable and as expensive as possible (and successful in doing that), many Whatcom County residents who would prefer life in the city, find themselves forced to choose a rural lifestyle.

What about the carrot?

Some years ago Whatcom County inadvertently tried the carrot approach to planning as the result of a State law called the Growth Management Act (GMA).

The result of meeting the requirements of the Act was that for a period of about seven years Bellingham had adequate land supplies to support a broad variety of housing choice.  For those seven years, 62% of all the growth in the county came to Bellingham.

But the new people weren’t living in tall buildings.  They were choosing to live in single family homes, albeit on much smaller lots than had been the tradition in the city and in ground saving housing styles (row houses, etc.) also not traditional in the city; exactly the result hoped for when the GMA was passed.

What was actually built on a site assumed to contain two eighteen story towers in City Planning documents.  The towers were actually counted as being completed in the existing plan but market realities created by the lack of desire most have to live in structures like those the city plan envisions required a downsizing.

At the end of seven years, miffed by the fact that people still chose to live and raise their families in Whatcom County a new approach to growth was implemented; the stick.  The ability to capture growth in the single family areas was eliminated.

The result? 

Today only about 20% of the population growth in the County takes place in its chief city.  A plan that relied on the building of dozens of 20 story plus skyscrapers to house residents of the city has not produced even one such building, or anything half as tall.  And people choose the rural lifestyle as a result.

Rather than look at what has happened and once again make the cities places people want to choose, the reaction by the pop enviro movement has been to begin an attempt to eliminate growth in the rural areas as well as in the cities.

The result?

Whatcom County sports the worst economy in Western Washington among the county’s peer counties.  Growth continues but, at the cost of continued “flight to the fields” as citizens run from draconian interference in their lives inside the cities.  Most importantly, all the environmental impacts coming as the result of forcing people who would otherwise choose life in the cities to choose a rural life instead continue to mount up.